#38163 - 03/24/10 05:42 AM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: Trekkie]
|
+Solistus
Gutter Trash
Registered: 06/19/00
Posts: 3930
|
No shit, I have no real interest in debate. This is Psycho Ward, remember? You fed the troll, realized it, posted this realization then got baited into feeding the troll some moar.
My honest opinions obviously don't boil down to "go Democratic Party, this bill is perfect, fuck you." I've known you for over a decade and have heard enough of your politics to know that the best way to maintain a modicum of respect for you is to ignore pretty much everything you say about politics. I'm a Marxist, btw, not a Democrat; I'm also a realist, though, and I knew there were only two realistic possibilities: this reform bill or the status quo.
If you're seriously going to vote for Republicans over this.... This is why I said ignoring your politics is a prerequisite to having any respect for you.
_________________________
I've parted ways with the clan and won't be checking this forum much. AIM me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38164 - 03/24/10 06:34 AM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: +Solistus]
|
+Cube
Overdosed
Registered: 01/28/01
Posts: 7278
Loc: Toronto, Ontario
|
How can you be mad at a law that grants access to healthcare to those who today do not have it? Give me one *good* reason. Healthcare is a human right.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38165 - 03/24/10 07:33 AM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: +Cube]
|
tA-Kane
Crack Baby
Registered: 01/30/01
Posts: 2272
Loc: Sugar Land, TX, USA
|
Honestly, I voted *for* Obama and all, but this bill isn't quite what I'd like. It definitely is a step in the wrong direction.
But, you know what? At least it's a step in *some* direction.
Both of you are right. Both of you are wrong. What happens will happen, what doesn't doesn't. The fact remains that doing nothing is worse than doing naught for trying and ending up doing the wrong thing.
It just saddens me that so many politicians can be out of touch with reality. All three of my congressman disagree with almost all of my political preferences. And, all three of them have failed me. Mind you, all three are Republican. Chances are, they would still have all three failed me if they were Democrat.
Republicans disagree with Democrats just to disagree with Democrats and fight Obama. Democrats push stuff around just to prove they can push stuff around. Both sides are guilty of back door deals and earmarking. Both sides are guilty of holding back votes on the grounds of 'my way or the highway', esp. Stupak IMO.
Fact is, I'm going to a funeral now and I don't have time to write what I really want or should, so toodles.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38172 - 03/24/10 05:41 PM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: The Tony]
|
The Tony
Overdosed
Registered: 06/28/00
Posts: 5993
Loc: Durham, NC
|
Least efficient, but most effective. We have easily the most advanced health system in the world.
I also have great health insurance. The government's idea of health insurance will be minimal, at best. It will not be sufficient for any well established family.
My wife is in dental school. Her patients, for the most part, are either uninsured or have medicare. Medicare will not cover the majority of her patient's needs. Social Security typically provides barely enough money to live on and is payed for out of phantom money.
This is the government's idea of "coverage." I don't see new health coverage being revolutionarily better than these previous failed systems.
This is the way I see it... I have a car, and I pay monthly for my car in gas / loan / maintenance.
Imagine, if you will, that the government decided one day that EVERYONE had to own a car. It doesn't matter what kind, as long as it had 4 wheels and passed inspection. People who don't have a car because they can't afford one still won't be able to afford one, so I end up paying for a portion of it.
All the while I still have my car that I'm paying for, but now I'm paying for someone else's as well.
That's just the way I see it.
_________________________
Signature
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38174 - 03/24/10 10:00 PM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: +Cube]
|
Trekkie
Overdosed
Registered: 06/18/00
Posts: 5296
Loc: Houston, TX
|
No shit, I have no real interest in debate. This is Psycho Ward, remember? You fed the troll, realized it, posted this realization then got baited into feeding the troll some moar.
This isn't the time to be wrapping yourself in the cloak of a troll since they tend to get banned around here. As an admin you should know this.
My honest opinions obviously don't boil down to "go Democratic Party, this bill is perfect, fuck you." I've known you for over a decade and have heard enough of your politics to know that the best way to maintain a modicum of respect for you is to ignore pretty much everything you say about politics. I'm a Marxist, btw, not a Democrat; I'm also a realist, though, and I knew there were only two realistic possibilities: this reform bill or the status quo.
I've known you long enough to suspect we both think this bill is far from perfect. The difference is that no matter how much I disagree with your politics I can still respect you. The fact that apparently you can't respect anyone who's politics disagree with yours is telling. If you can't respect what they have to say then how can you honestly respect that person at all?
If you're seriously going to vote for Republicans over this.... This is why I said ignoring your politics is a prerequisite to having any respect for you.
Oh there's many reasons to vote against Democrats come November. What you're choosing to ignore is the fact that there's only two real choices at the polls. The primaries are the only chance to get the best of what's available and you can bet your ass I show up for those as well. I'll use my state's governors race as an example: in the primaries I voted for Hutchison over Perry but he won anyway. Come November I'll be voting for Bill White (D) but he'll probably lose to Perry (R) anyway.
How can you be mad at a law that grants access to healthcare to those who today do not have it? Give me one *good* reason. Healthcare is a human right.
Quite simply this law does nothing about healthcare itself but instead gets government in the business of who can be insured, not who can't be denied care. As truth in advertising this bill should never have been labeled healthcare reform but instead health insurance reform. The only good things this bill does are: 1, attempt to remove the pre-existing condition denial from insurance companies, 2, encourage more plans covering preventative care, 3, prohibit them from dropping policy holders when they get sick and 4, encourage the states to create exchanges for private plans. For those few good benefits it just brings too much crap and that's without knowing how much the damn thing is really going to cost. This bill could have been much, much better for what it was focuses on. In contrast we got a law that was so full of problems that the Democrats that passed it in the House turned right around and passed another bill that included all the changes they wanted to see in it. If you're asking yourself why they would pass another bill instead of simply modifying the previous one to correct the problems they saw the answer is simple. The new bill must now be passed by the Senate, which it likely won't, and if the Democratic leadership had modified the original bill then it would have required another vote by the Senate, which it again likely wouldn't have approved. It should be telling how the law made it through the House by the skin of its teeth. There's also the matter of how Congress suddenly thinks they can tell us who we have to give our money to. I'm not opposed to finding ways to provide affordable or even free healthcare access to those that can't afford it but this bill was not the way to do it.(Keep in mind that we already have services such as Medicaid, for low-income, and Medicare, for elderly.)
Kane: you know Stupak backed down once he realised his 'taking a stand' might actually sideline the bill, though, right? I disagree quite strongly that this is a step in the wrong direction.
Sorry to jump in but a point of order must be made. Stupak backed down not because of sidelining the bill but because of a non-binding executive order concerning abortion clarification.
Cube: agreed. Apparently that makes us Stalinists. Even though it was the US that primarily drafted the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which explicitly includes access to medical care as a basic human right. Sigh.
For the record you're the one going around labeling yourself. As for the US being the primary drafter for the UDHR, unless you have evidence to back up that claim it just isn't so. Granted that although Eleanor Roosevelt was a highly visible participant in crafting the language she was, in the end, just one of many that had a hand in it.(Like a certain other declaration we both know.) It is also important to point out that the UDHR says medical care is needed for an adequate standard of living, not the ability to pay for it. Emergency rooms across the country were already required to render services wether or not the patient could furnish proof of ability to pay and public hospitals can't turn anyone away. As mentioned before we already have Medicaid/Medicare and all this new law does is re-arrange the deck chairs. This isn't the groundbreaking healthcare reform it's being made out to be.
What if you don't have children? You still have to pay taxes that support schools. Why don't you complain about that? Seems to be nearly the same argument, but I don't see republicans rising up on the streets over this.
I can't speak for how the system is structured in Canada but in the US funding for public education is primarily a local and state matter, not federal. Believe me, at the local level there is ongoing debate about the topic no matter ones political affiliation. If you want to ask a question like that then go to the heart of the matter, using taxes to support others. Don't throw up a straw man and then try to change the subject. Bad form old chap. *smokes his pipe a bit*
Useful but on their own proving nothing.
Whoopsy, we've gone and turned this poor trolls spam into a discussion. Oh the humanity!
_________________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38175 - 03/24/10 11:00 PM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: Trekkie]
|
+Solistus
Gutter Trash
Registered: 06/19/00
Posts: 3930
|
Trolls get banned on c-m? For posts in Psycho Ward? I'm starting to think Trekkie lives in an alternate universe.
You like to call things telling without making an argument. It's annoying and condescending. What, exactly, does it tell about me? If you want to say something, say it.
I'm not ignoring the fact that there are only two options at the polls at all. That's the crux of my entire argument for supporting the Democrats in the first place. Remember how you admitted that the Republicans have been "fucking retarded" in this whole affair? Now that you are clarifying that you apparently meant you will see me at the polls... to also vote for Democrats (that'll show me?), I'm less bothered - I took that as "I'm gonna vote for the Republicans that will be on the TX ballot come November". I stand by the fact that I can't respect the intelligence of someone who chooses to do the latter based on the Republicans in general having handled themselves better in the HC debate than the Dems in general.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Sounds pretty much like universal access to medical care is a guaranteed right, huh? Along with a very long list of social services... There's also a clause at the beginning that lists all the things that nobody shall be denied their rights for - along with race, gender, nationality, etc., it includes "property." If it's a right, then everybody gets it whether they can pay or not. Emergency room access is not the same as "the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including... medical care and necessary social services" if even basic preventative care and antibiotics require paid insurance. We clearly don't meet our UDHR obligations.
I don't wanna argue history with you, but have you heard of FDR's Four Freedoms Speech? And for fuck's sake, this was the UN in 1948 - who else do you think was running the show? It wasn't Stalin's idea, I can tell you that much. The Stalinists comment was directed at those "fucking retarded" Republican commentators, btw, quit being so defensive.
Have fun being wrong and feeling superior for being so benevolent and tolerant while tossing around implicit ban threats over a Psycho Ward thread. As I predicted, you have little to add that I feel like engaging. This feels like work, so unless you want to pay me, I'm done here.
Edited by +Solistus (03/24/10 11:01 PM)
_________________________
I've parted ways with the clan and won't be checking this forum much. AIM me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38176 - 03/25/10 01:22 AM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: +Solistus]
|
Trekkie
Overdosed
Registered: 06/18/00
Posts: 5296
Loc: Houston, TX
|
Trolls get banned on c-m? For posts in Psycho Ward? I'm starting to think Trekkie lives in an alternate universe.
I created the Psycho Ward so people could vent things that would normally be deleted from general discussion.(Namely every time Jaco or one of his old crew felt like saying something.) It's not cart blanche to troll, troll, troll. Your original post was better suited for Twitter anyway.
You like to call things telling without making an argument. It's annoying and condescending. What, exactly, does it tell about me? If you want to say something, say it.
I'll admit to leaving it at that since my heart wasn't into getting into a debate about character. If you must know my point was that it reflects on your character in a poor light that you can't seem to respect others without first ignoring what they think. I wouldn't be throwing any stones if I were you since you got the ball rolling by calling someone else stupid.
I'm not ignoring the fact that there are only two options at the polls at all. That's the crux of my entire argument for supporting the Democrats in the first place. Remember how you admitted that the Republicans have been "fucking retarded" in this whole affair? Now that you are clarifying that you apparently meant you will see me at the polls... to also vote for Democrats (that'll show me?), I'm less bothered - I took that as "I'm gonna vote for the Republicans that will be on the TX ballot come November". I stand by the fact that I can't respect the intelligence of someone who chooses to do the latter based on the Republicans in general having handled themselves better in the HC debate than the Dems in general.
You seemed to be ignoring it since you were inferring that I'm voting Republican only. I added the example to demonstrate that I'm not beholden to any one party. Besides, to interpret two comments about elections settling matters to mean someone votes party line is reaching. On the other hand, you seem to be making it quite clear who you support.
Sounds pretty much like universal access to medical care is a guaranteed right, huh? Along with a very long list of social services... There's also a clause at the beginning that lists all the things that nobody shall be denied their rights for - along with race, gender, nationality, etc., it includes "property." If it's a right, then everybody gets it whether they can pay or not. Emergency room access is not the same as "the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including... medical care and necessary social services" if even basic preventative care and antibiotics require paid insurance. We clearly don't meet our UDHR obligations.
Do I really have to point out that the UN does not make the law in any sovereign nation? The UDHR is a declaration by the UN, not even a legally binding agreement. It is then left to each member country using their own guiding framework to enable such noble ideals. I was merely pointing out examples of how the US has done so. Preventative care is one thing, something I do applaud the HCR bill for encouraging, but antibiotics are in fact used in the ER. As a nation we more than fulfill the obligations in the very article of the UDHR you quote. Disregarding Social Security, public housing programs, unemployment benefits, the aforementioned Medicair/Medicaid, public education and a wealth of other services are you saying that we fail to meet those obligations simply because a person can't walk into a hospital and demand the doctors and nurses work for free?
I don't wanna argue history with you, but have you heard of FDR's Four Freedoms Speech? And for fuck's sake, this was the UN in 1948 - who else do you think was running the show? It wasn't Stalin's idea, I can tell you that much.
Wow, the way you're describing it you're making it sound like the UN was the US's bitch. Could even detect a hint of 'rah, rah, rah, USA, USA!' if I didn't know any better. To reinforce my point it should be noted that the UN has yet to have a Secretary General from the United States and that the US is barely in the top 5 for number of times to head the Security Council.(Based on information published at the UN website.) Attention Australia, Canada, China, France, India, Lebanon and Russia: you can go fuck yourselves since Solistus doesn't acknowledge your input; France, that goes double for you. A speech made by FDR doesn't immediately segue into a UN resolution, particularly as he had been dead at the time of its creation. My point stands that the UDHR was and remains the work of many.
The Stalinists comment was directed at those "fucking retarded" Republican commentators, btw, quit being so defensive.
Then you should have stated as much since said Republican commentators have yet to join this thread. And who's the one being defensive since you're the one throwing up labels?
Have fun being wrong and feeling superior for being so benevolent and tolerant while tossing around implicit ban threats over a Psycho Ward thread. As I predicted, you have little to add that I feel like engaging. This feels like work, so unless you want to pay me, I'm done here.
Let me know when you even attempt to prove me wrong on anything. You know, when I was typing up the previous reply about the troll bit I had even written a part implicitly stating that it wasn't a threat directed at you. In the end I deleted it since I figured the part about you being an admin would be enough and that you would know where to draw the line. I see I was mistaken in my belief about you. I would encourage you to quit working under the assumption that merely posting in the Psycho Ward suddenly bestows some sort of protected speech status but you've made it quite evident that you'd rather act like an immature jackass. That's right my friend, even the Psycho Ward can contain serious discussion. News at eleven!!!
I was going to close by saying that I think we can both agree that we don't intend to belittle each other with our opinions but you've just blown that assumption out of the water. I fear for the country if the rest of your chosen party thinks as you do.
_________________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38177 - 03/25/10 03:41 AM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: Trekkie]
|
Midnight Sun
Addicted
Registered: 08/18/00
Posts: 968
Loc: layton, UT, USA
|
My 2 cents (worth probably less, but meh, this is the psycho ward. Also, after the fact I realized that this post is a massive amount of agreeing with people on both sides of the debate -- I guess I see it a lot like Kane does in that both sides have a lot of valid points. I guess I gotta throw my own opinion out there at the end of this or something) --
1. Cube posted "Healthcare is a human right."
I actually totally agree with this. Interestingly (at least to me anyway!), I don't know exactly where it is law and where it isn't, but I do know that it is law in many places (and people generally don't have a problem with this law) to provide life-saving services in an emergency if you have the know-how, even though it costs in terms of time/effort/etc (things that equate at some level to money). By extension, it doesn't bother me if it costs me some manageable amount of money to be sure that life-saving and disease-preventing care is available to those same people that I would be required by law to help in an emergency (another argument for another day -- why not prevent many of those emergencies by providing the disease-preventing care beforehand?).
2. Tony posted "Social Security typically provides barely enough money to live on and is payed for out of phantom money."
I gotta agree with this phantom money concept -- Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever undertaken in the history of mankind to my knowledge!
3. Trekkie posted "The bill that compels citizens under penalty of law to enter into a contract with a private company or else?"
I'm totally agreeing with this also -- I chafe at the concept of being required to do business with insurance companies under penalty of law. You can choose not to drive, not to own a house, etc. I guess now the only things that are for sure are death, taxes, and belonging to some insurance group? hmmph.
4. Solistus wrote "But read the damn bill, unless you make a healthy 6 figure salary it's almost impossible for this bill not to end up saving you money."
I probably haven't read it nearly as much as you, but I got the same impression. In 3 months, I'm not going to be "working" (or getting an income at all, even though I'll be working harder than ever... bring on the 6 figure (we estimate $400,000) debt over the next 4 years!) and my family will almost certainly benefit from this bill (especially as my wife has type-1 diabetes -- insurance has ALWAYS been a major hassle/need).
5. Tony wrote "Least efficient, but most effective. We have easily the most advanced health system in the world."
Absolutely -- I think least efficient and most effective have to be part of the definition of innovation somewhere (if webster is being honest at least! *insert biological evolution argument here* =p). As much as it bothers me how much money drug companies and such make off of their discoveries (I still can't believe that people have to pay a royalty to Roche for every PCR-based test, even though they bought the rights to PCR for like $10k. How can you really justify making money off of every genetic test ever done just because you made a killer deal?? /end rant), atleast they discovered something and are providing people with (often, not always) a better quality of life! While an "ideal" society (whatever that means) would have the opportunity to help people by working hard and advancing medical technology be its own reward, in the real world with real people, usually money is a stronger motivator.
6. Cube wrote "there are other countries that appear to spend less and have a more effective health care system than the USA."
I've heard several people throw out Singapore over the past couple days, for one. I think that an absolutely major flaw of our healthcare system is that we rely WAY too heavily on cure, prevention being an afterthought. Its way over-used, but I think its accurate: an ounce of cure is worth a pound of prevention. I hope that some day the US healthcare system can have the best of both worlds -- the same world-leading advances in cures and management (which the US absolutely has) coupled with world-leading primary care and prevention (something that the US is pretty abysmal at emphasizing, and probably equates more closely to good healthcare!).
7. Trekkie posted "If you want to ask a question like that then go to the heart of the matter, using taxes to support others"
I think that this question is more fundamental to the difference between Dems and Repubs than just about anything else! You've all probably heard the phrase "You pay for the level of civilization you get." (why do I keep throwing out phrases like theyre true just because some guy said it? I hope its not coming across that way -- I'm actually trying to voice my opinion in a way that might be familiar/understood, not cater to the mentality that something is true just because a lot of people think that way). I take civilization in this context to mean roughly interdependence. I mean, doesn't it come down to your own personal preference whether you want to be in total control of your own world (which favors small/efficient government) or if you want to give up some of your control (money?) to have fewer things to worry about (favoring big government that worries about them for you)?
My opinion - I think that the bill is pretty messed up. Like, really messed up in terms of how poorly the funding for it is structured and reasonably planned, the ram-rod approach to forcing it through despite a "blah" public response (most polls I've seen show that roughly the same number of people are for it as against it, which probably just generally reflects party lines), the partisan politics that define it, the mandates, etc.
I'm still glad it passed at this point, though, because I guess I have a little faith in the US that we can change the bill over time to actually yield a net benefit for the vast majority of people. I like how Kane said that taking a step even in the wrong direction (I kinda think that this is a step, like, not in any direction really -- I hope its more like starting the engine than anything, since without it we'd be doing "business as usual" indefinitely) is a good thing (bad paraphrasing, sorry man!). Ultimately I hope that the bill over the course of a decade or so is refined atleast as much by repubs as by dems (since I generally lean conservative in my politics, having more confidence in local government than federal government. rah rah states rights!)
Thanks psycho ward, I needed that ===)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#38181 - 03/25/10 05:31 PM
Re: Health Care, bitchesssss
[Re: Trekkie]
|
+Solistus
Gutter Trash
Registered: 06/19/00
Posts: 3930
|
I'm done debating health care on fucking PW, I'll just respond to the new list of personal snipes.
re: banning comment: whatever, just you trying to rules lawyer then giving it up when called out. Ban me if you like, that would be really amusing. Almost as amusing as you suggesting it's yet another sign of my immaturity or stupidity that I didn't realise that comment wasn't directed at me (even though you basically clarified that it was directed at me by further criticizing my "trolling" as against the rules), then also acted like it was my fault for YOU thinking the "Stalinists" comment, which was just a sarcastic side comment, was some personal attack at you. Cognitive dissonance much?
Character? Fuck off. No, I don't pretend to respect people when they say things I think are offensive and stupid. If I said I supported the holocaust would you not respect me less because of it? I don't buy your insinuations that refusing to acknowledge that politics is important makes you more mature. If someone openly supports the Republican minority at this phase in history, then no, I can't respect them.
As for assuming you meant you would vote Republican - for fuck's sake dude, read what you initially wrote:
" For the record I would be frustrated except the truth is all your "side" has won is early retirement. See you at the polls my friend."
You called them my side, said they would lose, and then said "see you at the polls my friend." The context to you going to the polls was saying "my side" (the Dems) would lose. Maybe it's not what you meant, but acting like it's my fault for "mis"interpreting this as you saying you would support the Republican congressional candidates over the Democratic congressional candidates is completely asinine.
I was just answering your claim that the UDHR didn't say what it obviously says. I don't care to debate the interpretation of that with you, but bashing me as if I don't know how international treaties work just shows you are more interested in finding excuses to call me wrong than understanding and responding to my points.
Rah rah rah, USA? You don't know me at all, clearly. Lulz.
As for the Stalinists comment. The point of this thread was TO GLOAT IN RESPONSE TO REPUBLICAN FUCKTARDS SAYING CRAZY SHIT. Is it really so hard to grasp, in that context, why I might make a comment that referred to someone I disagree with *other than* you?
I'm done here for real now, feel free to post another long list of personal attacks that apparently scream of 'character' to you. I'm done, here and on c-m in general for a while. Apparently I'm a bad admin who deserves to be banned for insulting Trekkie on PW, anyway, so consider this a temporary(?) self-ban. Feel free to post about why that, too, proves you to have superior character and all that crap. There are too few people here I still actually enjoy interacting with and pretty much all of them use FB. Peace, all.
Edited by +Solistus (03/25/10 05:35 PM)
_________________________
I've parted ways with the clan and won't be checking this forum much. AIM me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Jaco, tragicjester
|
0 registered
and 4 anonymous users online.
|
|
384 Members
10 Forums
384 Topics
6085 Posts
Max Online: 36 @ 04/11/11 06:14 AM
|
|
|
